Who Created Whom?

[Earle Jones27]

*
For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?

1. God created man in his own image.

2. Man created God in his own image.

Thanks,

earle
*

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.


[1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.

[Kalkidas]

On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> *
> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>
> 1. God created man in his own image.
>
> 2. Man created God in his own image.

Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.

[raven1]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> *
>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>
>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>
>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>
>Question 2 is invalid, since by definition

Whose definition?

>God is uncreated and
>therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.

Are you unable to even consider the possibility that the idea of "God"
was made up by humans, rather than being an actual existing being?

[Glenn]

"Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2016100214301865418-earlejones@comcastnet...

> *
> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>
> 1. God created man in his own image.
>
> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>

Which man?

[jillery]

The man with the Power.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[raven1]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:02:52 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:51:55 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2016100214301865418-earlejones@comcastnet...
>>> *
>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>
>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>
>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>Which man?
>
>
>The man with the Power.

What power?

[jonathan]

What bullshit. The ng charter clearly allows
religious and philosophical discussions
concerning our origins. Do you need to
have someone read below to you? Hint, use
you fingers to follow along with each
sentence.

God is certainly on topic.



"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for
discussion of the scientific, religious, and political
issues pertaining to various theories of the origins
and development of life and the universe.

Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions
over a large number of topics are covered, all relating
back to the main purpose of the group.

Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
permit unrestricted discussions,..."
http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html






s

[jonathan]

I've seen more educated discussions
on Sesame Street

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Your definition is not necessarily correct, so your post is
irrelevant to the question.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Kalkidas]

On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>> *
>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>
>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>
>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>
>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>
> Whose definition?

Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.

>
>> God is uncreated and
>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>
> Are you unable to even consider the possibility that the idea of "God"
> was made up by humans, rather than being an actual existing being?

The statements were not about the "idea" of God. They were about God.

[raven1]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:20:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>
>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>>
>> Whose definition?
>
>Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.

If you mean hundreds of conflicting definitions, sure.

>>> God is uncreated and
>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>
>> Are you unable to even consider the possibility that the idea of "God"
>> was made up by humans, rather than being an actual existing being?
>
>The statements were not about the "idea" of God. They were about God.

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, it's pointless to continue.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:13:02 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/3/2016 1:52 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:30:18 -0700, Earle Jones27
>> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> *
>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>
>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>
>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> earle
>>> *
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.
>>
>>
>> [1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.
>>
>
>
>What bullshit. The ng charter clearly allows
>religious and philosophical discussions
>concerning our origins. Do you need to
>have someone read below to you? Hint, use
>you fingers to follow along with each
>sentence.
>
>God is certainly on topic.

Nobody said anything here about anything not being on topic. Perhaps
if you pulled your head out of your ass, you could better read your
screen.

>"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for
>discussion of the scientific, religious, and political
>issues pertaining to various theories of the origins
>and development of life and the universe.
>
>Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions
>over a large number of topics are covered, all relating
>back to the main purpose of the group.
>
>Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
>discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
>permit unrestricted discussions,..."
>http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>s
>
>
>
>
>

[jillery]

The Power of Voodoo.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:15:39 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh, you want the room for abuse. That's next door.

[Kalkidas]

On 10/3/2016 10:27 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:20:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> *
>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>>>
>>> Whose definition?
>>
>> Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.
>
> If you mean hundreds of conflicting definitions, sure.

There is no conflict on the status of God as uncreated. All mainstream
theologians for the last 5000 years agree on that.

>
>>>> God is uncreated and
>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>
>>> Are you unable to even consider the possibility that the idea of "God"
>>> was made up by humans, rather than being an actual existing being?
>>
>> The statements were not about the "idea" of God. They were about God.
>
> If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, it's pointless to continue.

If you're going to be equivocal, I agree it's pointless to continue.

[jonathan]

Do they charge for the service?

[jonathan]

On 10/3/2016 1:53 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:13:02 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/2016 1:52 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:30:18 -0700, Earle Jones27
>>> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *
>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>
>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> earle
>>>> *
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What bullshit. The ng charter clearly allows
>> religious and philosophical discussions
>> concerning our origins. Do you need to
>> have someone read below to you? Hint, use
>> you fingers to follow along with each
>> sentence.
>>
>> God is certainly on topic.
>
>
> Nobody said anything here about anything not being on topic.

Yes they did.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:25:50 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

Apparently not.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:22:48 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/3/2016 1:53 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:15:39 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2016 12:51 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2016100214301865418-earlejones@comcastnet...
>>>>> *
>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>> Which man?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen more educated discussions
>>> on Sesame Street
>>
>>
>> Oh, you want the room for abuse. That's next door.
>
>
>
>Do they charge for the service?

I suppose if you're really bad at it, they might ask for their money
back.

[Ray Martinez]

Rhetorical question that assumes Materialism true.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

So AAQ, an Evolutionist, and thus a person who accepts the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory known as Naturalism, who also claims to be a practicing Christian, answers in favor of Agnosticism while having no awareness of the egregious contradictions seen in possessing belief in Agnosticism, Christianity, and Naturalism (which is Atheism). No wonder our "Christian" believes no evidence exists supporting #1.

So one could not dream of better evidence showing the degree of inexcusable stupidity, ignorance, and delusion that the "Christian" Evolutionist suffers from.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical; species immutabilist)

[Burkhard]

both

Gods created men to create more gods to create more man to create more
gods... ad inf.

[Burkhard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkAVfsw5xSQ

[RonO]

Have you seen the old logo of the ID scam wing of the Discovery
Institute? They choose door number two.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Ron Okimoto

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:13:02 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I dare say in some universe somewhere, that response bears some
relationship to what I posted. I suspect, however, that that universe
exists solely in Jonathan's fertile imagination.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 2 de octubre de 2016, 22:34:51 (UTC+1), Earle Jones27 escribió:
> *
> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>
> 1. God created man in his own image.
>
> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>
> Thanks,
>
> earle
> *

pretty easy. The men created the gods, for diverse motives.
But once a god exists there is only a way of killing it. Is to make a
number of wars to exterminate the worshipers of the older god
and put a new god in place of the old.
eri

[RonO]

Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?

I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
like, but some people have a different opinion.

Ron Okimoto

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/3/2016 11:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> *
>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>
>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>
>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>
> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>

Sounds like exactly the sort of God men would create.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Ray, still struggling with a Faith that isn't strong enough to deal
with challenges made to it.

[raven1]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:56:16 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/3/2016 10:27 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:20:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>>>>
>>>> Whose definition?
>>>
>>> Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.
>>
>> If you mean hundreds of conflicting definitions, sure.
>
>There is no conflict on the status of God as uncreated. All mainstream
>theologians for the last 5000 years agree on that.

That implies that you're familiar with the writings of all
"mainstream" theologians (who decides that, BTW?) for the last 5000
years, a rather broad claim.

>>>>> God is uncreated and
>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> Are you unable to even consider the possibility that the idea of "God"
>>>> was made up by humans, rather than being an actual existing being?
>>>
>>> The statements were not about the "idea" of God. They were about God.
>>
>> If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, it's pointless to continue.
>
>If you're going to be equivocal, I agree it's pointless to continue.

I'm not. I'm asking you to drop your preconception that God is an
existing being, and consider that it's an idea created by humans.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:13:02 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

Amazing; you actually read the purpose of the group. So what
keeps you from restricting yourself to on-topic posts?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:25:50 -0400, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 10/3/2016 1:53 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:13:02 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2016 1:52 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:30:18 -0700, Earle Jones27
>>>> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> earle
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What bullshit. The ng charter clearly allows
>>> religious and philosophical discussions
>>> concerning our origins. Do you need to
>>> have someone read below to you? Hint, use
>>> you fingers to follow along with each
>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> God is certainly on topic.
>>
>>
>> Nobody said anything here about anything not being on topic.
>
>
>
>Yes they did.

No, they didn't. Learn to read for comprehension; AAQ only
noted that scientific definitions are the evaluative context
here. Which they are.

>> Perhaps
>> if you pulled your head out of your ass, you could better read your
>> screen.
>>
>>
>>> "The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for
>>> discussion of the scientific, religious, and political
>>> issues pertaining to various theories of the origins
>>> and development of life and the universe.
>>>
>>> Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions
>>> over a large number of topics are covered, all relating
>>> back to the main purpose of the group.
>>>
>>> Given the sometimes contentious nature of such
>>> discussions, a moderation policy has been selected to
>>> permit unrestricted discussions,..."
>>> http://www.ediacara.org/~to/charter.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Nope, it makes no assumptions whatsoever, and it's a valid
question to ask of an individual in the context of this
thread.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:32:21 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

You misspelled "febrile"; HTH...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:30:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:54:51 PM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:30:18 -0700, Earle Jones27
>> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >*
>> >For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>> >
>> >1. God created man in his own image.
>> >
>> >2. Man created God in his own image.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >earle
>> >*
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.
>>
>>
>> [1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.
>
>So AAQ, an Evolutionist, and thus a person who accepts the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory known as Naturalism, who also claims to be a practicing Christian, answers in favor of Agnosticism while having no awareness of the egregious contradictions seen in possessing belief in Agnosticism, Christianity, and Naturalism (which is Atheism).

There are no serious contradictions. From
oxforddictionaries.com:

"agnostic
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be
known of the existence or nature of God."

Note that this says *nothing whatsoever* regarding religious
belief or lack thereof; it deals *only* with the perceived
limit of knowledge (see the word "known"? What do you
suppose it might mean?).

> No wonder our "Christian" believes no evidence exists supporting #1.

There is no scientific evidence, which is irrelevant to
faith and belief.

>So one could not dream of better evidence showing the degree of inexcusable stupidity, ignorance, and delusion that the "Christian" Evolutionist suffers from.

Well, I see plenty of "inexcusable stupidity, ignorance, and
delusion" here; we differ on the source.

[Peter Nyikos]

Since you have refused to say ANYTHING about the nature of the creator
you supposedly believe in, it is inappropriate to use the word
"God" for it.

And the whole issue of what God looks like is the domain of
skeptics and atheists, who are all too happy to knock down
strawmen like the ten-foot-tall old man with a white beard.

Real Christians believe that God is a spirit and that such
manifestations as the pillar of fire in Exodus have no relevance
as to appearances, which may be nonexistent.
They believe God has made himself known through Jesus Christ,
but we don't really know what Jesus looked like, unless the
Shroud of Turin has a genuine image of Jesus on it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Earle Jones27]

*
Michel de Montaigne would agree with eri (No. 2 above.)

"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm
and yet will make Gods by the dozen!"

--Michel Eyqyem de Montaigne, French essayist (1533-92)

earle
*

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:54:51 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 14:30:18 -0700, Earle Jones27
> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> >*
> >For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
> >
> >1. God created man in his own image.
> >
> >2. Man created God in his own image.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >earle
> >*
>

> To the best of my knowledge, there is zero *evidence* [1] for either.
>
>
> [1] In a scientific sense which is the context in this ng.

In any context, I'd say. I often remark sarcastically that if doves
made God in their own image, the Holy Spirit would be depicted in the form
of a man.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Sorry, Earle, your question does not allow for polytheism, only
various monotheisms, and I believe this is exactly what Montaigne
was talking about, given the age in which he lived.

By the way, did he say that these Gods were made in man's image?

My guess is that he was too well versed in the history of this
saying to do that. An ancient Greek made the statement that men make gods
(note the plural) in their image, and of all gods I've heard
of, it is those of the Greeks that are most in man's image,
together with the Norse gods.

But it just becomes a bad joke when the saying is applied to
the Christian concept of God. I bet the majority of
people who hear "Man made God in his image" think it is just
a slick atheistic twist on the verse in Genesis that says
God made man in his own image. I doubt that more than a
small fraction know the history of the saying.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/3/16 10:56 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 10/3/2016 10:27 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:20:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most
>>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>>>>
>>>> Whose definition?
>>>
>>> Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.
>>
>> If you mean hundreds of conflicting definitions, sure.
>
> There is no conflict on the status of God as uncreated. All mainstream
> theologians for the last 5000 years agree on that.

There is a big difference, though, in believing in an uncreated God and
believing that "uncreated" is part of the definition.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/4/16 2:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:29:46 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>
>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>
>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Since you have refused to say ANYTHING about the nature of the creator
> you supposedly believe in, it is inappropriate to use the word
> "God" for it.

Interesting. I am of the opinion that if you *do* say anything about
the nature of the creator, then it is inappropriate to use the word
"God" for it. When you start saying things about God, you start
limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
estimation.

[jillery]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:16:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

My suspicion is jonathan is following the Monty Python skit which I
alluded to elsetopic. If so, he will likely reply with "Yes, they
did" or "No, they aren't" or somesuch.

[raven1]

The question makes no such assumption. It merely asks that the reader
consider the possibility that God is a human invention.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 10:44:44 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/4/16 2:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:29:46 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >>>> *
> >>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
> >>>
> >>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
> >>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
> >> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
> >> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
> >>
> >> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
> >> like, but some people have a different opinion.
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Since you have refused to say ANYTHING about the nature of the creator
> > you supposedly believe in, it is inappropriate to use the word
> > "God" for it.
>
> Interesting. I am of the opinion that if you *do* say anything about
> the nature of the creator, then it is inappropriate to use the word
> "God" for it.

Don't you realize that by calling God "the creator" you ARE saying
something very definite about God? Or are you banking on a "creator"
about which nothing further can be said? Like, it would be improper
to say that "the creator" created the universe, or any physical object?

Do you think that is Ron O's take on his idea of "the creator" in
which he says he believes?

Or do you suppose that Ron O's "creator" just might have been a creature
created by a far mightier creator, and that it could even be "creators
all the way up" to paraphrase a famous saying about turtles?

> When you start saying things about God, you start
> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
> estimation.

This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
takes seriously nowadays.

But you might find Ron O agreeing heartily with you, since
he has an almost maniacal hatred of the Discovery Institute.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Mark Isaak]

Mostly I used "creator" because you did, and I thought it would help
with communication. Boy, was I wrong.

> Do you think that is Ron O's take on his idea of "the creator" in
> which he says he believes?

Why would I, or anyone besides Ron, even care?

>> When you start saying things about God, you start
>> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
>> estimation.
>
> This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
> to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
> perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
> takes seriously nowadays.

Yes, talk of God being limitless is a well-known atheist message.
Famous atheists from Robert Ingersoll to Richard Dawkins speak about
little else besides an infinite God.

[Peter Nyikos]

Indeed. You seem to have reduced yourself to speechlessness, else
why did you duck every single question I asked you? I asked them
in the hope that I could get you to clarify your inchoate claim
of what your opinion is.

Boy, was I wrong.

> > Do you think that is Ron O's take on his idea of "the creator" in
> > which he says he believes?
>
> Why would I, or anyone besides Ron, even care?

I have my reasons for caring, but I don't think you want to
know about them. After all, you did an unmarked snip of the
paragraph where I gave an alternative idea of what Ron O's
alleged "creator" might be like, one that is incompatible
with your ideas about what God could be like, both above and below.

> >> When you start saying things about God, you start
> >> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
> >> estimation.
> >
> > This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
> > to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
> > perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
> > takes seriously nowadays.
>
> Yes, talk of God being limitless is a well-known atheist message.
> Famous atheists from Robert Ingersoll to Richard Dawkins speak about
> little else besides an infinite God.

"Infinite" does not mean "completely indescribable,"
which is what you seemed to be opting for in your first reply to me.

I've come across inchoate talk like yours before, but it was mostly
in the context of people using the famous formula "Neti, neti" without
knowing that the Upanishad where it appears is just saying
that the deity isn't this or that physical object. Otherwise,
it was in modern contexts, like people repeating Karl Barth's formula of
God being "the wholly Other" without sufficiently taking note
of how Barth believed that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

Then all you've done is re-state the question posed in the Opening Post.

Ray

[Earle Jones27]

*
Peter: Thanks! No doubt you are right.

And yet the First Commandment admonishes us to "...have no other Gods
before me..."

Other Gods?

What other Gods?

Are there other Gods?

Perhaps there is only one, but you would not know it from this commandment.

earle
*

[jonathan]

Don't give me that you snotty faced heap of
parrot droppings...

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

No, I've pointed out that Kalkidas is assuming that God is an existing
being without considering the alternative.

[Peter Nyikos]

...as opposed to the sort of gods the Greeks created, [1] and the Romans
adopted. All were descended from the god Ouranos (Uranus) and the
goddess Gaea (Terra), both of whom emerged from a pre-existing chaos.

The God of Genesis 1 (Elohim) sounds a bit [2] like these gods, and
says, "Let us make man in our own image." OTOH the God of Genesis 2
(YHWH) is depicted in the singular, and there is no mention of
YHWH having made man in the image of YHWH (or of anything else, for that
matter) but only out of the "dust of the earth".

[1] The whole "man created God in his image" business is the
illegitimate offspring of an ancient Greek statement about
the Greek gods, which thoroughly deserved the epithet.

[2] But only a bit. The heavens (Ouranos) [3] and the earth (Terra)
were both depicted as being made by Elohim in Genesis 1:1.

[3] I don't what the Babylonian gods for heaven and earth were,
but I do know that they had a chaotic sort of creation myth, which
the Hebrews radically replaced with an orderly one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[Jonathan]

Why can't people think more abstractly about this?

The long running schism between science and religion
is merely a frame of reference error.

The universe is cyclic in character, like an iteration
the difference between beginning and end of the loop
is rather subjective.

The same is true for the concept of God, if we merely
place God at the...end...of the evolutionary ladder, the
ultimate or final emergent creation, then suddenly
science and religion are entirely consistent with
each other.

God is created in the image of man~

Science bases it's processes on...reducing to ever finer
gradations.

The new science of Complexity...expands to ever greater
emergent systems.

The two meet at...God.

God is not just the greatest emergent property, the
point at which top down control effects all within
the universe.

God is emergence itself.

A top down /creative or canalizing force/ that can't
be seen in /any/ of the parts no matter how finely
detailed or how large the system.

The point at which we can never directly see, yet
which all is dependent upon.



Emergence
from Wiki

Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of
a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced
this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts
(Laughlin 2005).

The whole is other than the sum of its parts.

An example from physics of such emergence is water, being
seemingly unpredictable even after an exhaustive study
of the properties of its constituent atoms of hydrogen
and oxygen.[9] It follows then that no simulation of the
system can exist, for such a simulation would itself
constitute a reduction of the system to its
constituent parts (Bedau 1997).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence



Emily had this figured out 150 years ago, when
will people today catch up?



I thought that nature was enough
Till Human nature came
But that the other did absorb
As Parallax a Flame

Of Human nature just aware
There added the Divine
Brief struggle for capacity
The power to contain

Is always as the contents
But give a Giant room
And you will lodge a Giant
And not a smaller man

[Kalkidas]

On 10/4/2016 7:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/3/16 10:56 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 10/3/2016 10:27 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:20:07 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/3/2016 9:25 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:02:44 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most
>>>>>>> evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose definition?
>>>>
>>>> Look it up in standard theology texts. There are hundreds.
>>>
>>> If you mean hundreds of conflicting definitions, sure.
>>
>> There is no conflict on the status of God as uncreated. All mainstream
>> theologians for the last 5000 years agree on that.
>
> There is a big difference, though, in believing in an uncreated God and
> believing that "uncreated" is part of the definition.
>

But God -- capital "G" -- is a proper noun designating a unique being.
That being is indeed uncreated by definition. Or if you prefer, without
beginning or end, which amounts to the same thing.

Now, a god -- small "g" -- is another matter. But the OP used the
capitalized "God".

[Kalkidas]

On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:

> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>> *
>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>
>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>
>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>

>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>
>

> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>
> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
> like, but some people have a different opinion.

If God exists, then He must *be* something. That is, He must be a
definite entity. Any vagueness or indefiniteness regarding Him must be
the product of our ignorance rather than any inherent vagueness or
indefiniteness in His being.

So whatever is a definite thing has a definite form, by definition! :-)

Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.

[Peter Nyikos]

They can, and I alluded to some of them in my last paragraph
in my latest reply to Mark Isaak on this thread.

But I'm no Hegelian, nor am I in a state of altered consciousness,
like William James was at one point from nitrous oxide.

[This refers to an experiment during which James, a powerful critic
of Hegel, for a short while felt "with unutterable power" that
Hegel was right and that all his criticisms of Hegel were wrong.]

> The long running schism between science and religion
> is merely a frame of reference error.

So you assert. But I don't think anyone in this newgroup takes
this assertion seriously the way you mean it.

> The universe is cyclic in character, like an iteration
> the difference between beginning and end of the loop
> is rather subjective.

Not according to current cosmology. "Dark energy" seems to
doom the universe to inevitable decay due to an expansion
that is forever accelerating.

>
> The same is true for the concept of God, if we merely
> place God at the...end...of the evolutionary ladder, the
> ultimate or final emergent creation, then suddenly
> science and religion are entirely consistent with
> each other.
>
> God is created in the image of man~

So you are an atheist, until the God you hope for emerges from
something that you envision.

> Science bases it's processes on...reducing to ever finer
> gradations.

Those gradations seem to have permanently terminated in quarks.

> The new science of Complexity...expands to ever greater
> emergent systems.

But almost all the expansion is done by popularizers like you
who know precious little about the details of complexity science.
You have repeatedly spurned Richard Norman's efforts to educate
you about the details.

> The two meet at...God.

Sheer speculation.

>
> God is not just the greatest emergent property, the
> point at which top down control effects all within
> the universe.
>
> God is emergence itself.

This is almost as far out as some of the things William James
wrote during his nitrous oxide intoxication, labeling them
"meaningless drivel" but adding that at the moments of transcribing
they seemed to be "fused in the fire of infinite rationality".

References on request.

I've left in the rest below, which seems to be more of the same
except for the mundane example you have quoted.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>
>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>
>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>
>If God exists, then He must *be* something.

Why? "Be" is a human concept.

>That is, He must be a
>definite entity.

Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
human.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 9:59:40 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:

[,,,]

>> The universe is cyclic in character, like an iteration
>> the difference between beginning and end of the loop
>> is rather subjective.
>
>Not according to current cosmology. "Dark energy" seems to
>doom the universe to inevitable decay due to an expansion
>that is forever accelerating.

Then again, the universe may simply be moving towards Teilhard de
Chardin's Omega Point.

[Kalkidas]

On 10/6/2016 10:54 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> *
>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>
>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>
>> If God exists, then He must *be* something.
>
> Why? "Be" is a human concept.

I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.

>
>> That is, He must be a
>> definite entity.
>
> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
> human.

I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.

[Mark Isaak]

So in answer to raven's question: Your definition.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/6/16 9:11 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>
>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>
>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>
>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>
> If God exists, then He must *be* something. That is, He must be a
> definite entity. Any vagueness or indefiniteness regarding Him must be
> the product of our ignorance rather than any inherent vagueness or
> indefiniteness in His being.
>
> So whatever is a definite thing has a definite form, by definition! :-)

A crowd is a definite thing, but there is usually an inherent
indefiniteness about whether people near the edges are part of the crowd
or not. Plus, people can come and go from the crowd so that its
composition changes completely, but the crowd has remained the same
definite entity the whole time.

Obviously your God is a definite thing, but it got that way by you
deciding it is thus, not by the argument you attempted to use to justify
your decision.

> Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
> creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.

And just how do you know what elephants think about?

[John Harshman]

Obviously they think about Ganesh.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:03:05 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

Wrong room. Abuse is room 12 next door.

[jillery]

You're not talking about "concepts". You're talking about
definitions. You said so yourself.

[Peter Nyikos]

Where is George Kaplan when he is really needed? I'd like a
literal translation from the original Hebrew.

My Magyar (Hungarian) translation of 20:3, when translated into
English, says, "Do not consider anyone but me to be God."

> What other Gods?
>
> Are there other Gods?
>
> Perhaps there is only one, but you would not know it from this commandment.

I'm holding out for a literal translation of the original Hebrew, with
the Hebrew words directly underneath in a good transliteration.

Otherwise, anything we could say could well be just GIGO.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

> earle
> *

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:39:48 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> On 10/2/2016 4:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> > *
> > For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
> >
> > 1. God created man in his own image.
> >
> > 2. Man created God in his own image.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > earle
> > *
> >
>

> Have you seen the old logo of the ID scam wing of the Discovery
> Institute?

Have you seen the replies I have done, first to you and then to Mark
Isaak? I saved the juicy stuff about you for Mark [see repost at end].

> They choose door number two.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
>
> Ron Okimoto

You mean door number 1, don't you? Or are you trying to fool
the readers whom you have conditioned over the years not to
click on links, because they almost never do what they claim to do?

The logo has a picture taken from Michelangelo's painting, portraying
the creation of Adam by God.

Oh...wait... is this just an slight improvement about your (fictitious?)
example of Christians depicting God as "built to brachiate through the
heavens like an ape"?

IOW, are you suggesting that, just because God is depicted in
in the form of a man, that Michelangelo "created" God in man's image?

If so, you are ignoring the times the Bible depicts God (and angels too,
as in Jacob wrestling with the angel) as sometimes appearing to humans
in human form. Just what do you think God looked like to Abraham when
the latter was arguing against God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Here is the repost, with a question for you at the end when it's over.

______________________ repost, identification in brackets________________

[myself to you:]

> > Since you have refused to say ANYTHING about the nature of the creator
> > you supposedly believe in, it is inappropriate to use the word
> > "God" for it.

[Mark:]

> Interesting. I am of the opinion that if you *do* say anything about
> the nature of the creator, then it is inappropriate to use the word
> "God" for it.

[myself:]

Don't you realize that by calling God "the creator" you ARE saying
something very definite about God? Or are you banking on a "creator"
about which nothing further can be said? Like, it would be improper
to say that "the creator" created the universe, or any physical object?

Do you think that is Ron O's take on his idea of "the creator" in
which he says he believes?

Or do you suppose that Ron O's "creator" just might have been a creature
created by a far mightier creator, and that it could even be "creators
all the way up" to paraphrase a famous saying about turtles?

[...]

[Mark:]

> When you start saying things about God, you start
> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
> estimation.

[myself:]

This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
takes seriously nowadays.

But you might find Ron O agreeing heartily with you, since
he has an almost maniacal hatred of the Discovery Institute.

========================= end of repost from this thread, at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/NcPCmqc4TRA/rJ3PBOAxAgAJ

Here's a somewhat farfetched question: since you claim the DI
opted for door number two, might your concept of "the creator"
be the human race?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of South Carolina ( Columbia )
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[RSNorman]

Certainly you realize that a literal translation, especially word for
word, is a very bad translation.

I tend to rely on the Schocken Bible , vol 1, The Five Books of Moses,
translated by Everett Fox. Fox writes "the truth is that the Bible
was nho written in ENlish in the twentieth or even the seventeenth
century; it is ancient, sometimes obscure, and speaks in a way quite
different from ours. Accordingly, I have sought here primarily to echo
the style of the original, believing that the Bible is best
approached, at least at the beginning, on its own terms. So I have
presented the text in ENglish dress but with a Hebraic voice."

As for Exodus 20, that reads "

2. I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt,
from a house of serfs.

3.You are not to have any other gods before my presence.

4. You are not to make yourself a carved mage or any figure that is in
the heavens above, that is on the earth beneath, that is in the waters
beneath the earth;

5. you are not to bow down to them, you are not to serve them, for I,
YHWH your God, am a jealous God, calling to account the iniquity of
the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation) of
those that hate me,

6. but showing loyalty to the thousandth of those that love me, of
those that keep my commandments.

I included context to indicate the nature of the translation.

Also note Exodus 34:14:

"For: You are not to bow down to any other god! For YHWH --
Jealous-One is his name, a jealous God is he!

And 34:15 - 17 repeats the injunction about worshiping other "gods".

The text refers repeatedly to "YHWH, your God" clearly signifying that
others had their own gods.

[Kalkidas]

Nope. Standard definition for at least 5000 years. It is your side that
invents its own definitions and then asks moronic and irrational
questions like "who created God?"

[Kalkidas]

On 10/6/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/6/16 9:11 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> *
>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>
>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>
>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>
>> If God exists, then He must *be* something. That is, He must be a
>> definite entity. Any vagueness or indefiniteness regarding Him must be
>> the product of our ignorance rather than any inherent vagueness or
>> indefiniteness in His being.
>>
>> So whatever is a definite thing has a definite form, by definition! :-)
>
> A crowd is a definite thing, but there is usually an inherent
> indefiniteness about whether people near the edges are part of the crowd
> or not.

Then a crowd is *not* a definite thing.

>Plus, people can come and go from the crowd so that its
> composition changes completely, but the crowd has remained the same
> definite entity the whole time.

Then a crowd is *not* a definite thing.

> Obviously your God is a definite thing, but it got that way by you
> deciding it is thus, not by the argument you attempted to use to justify
> your decision.

No. God did not "get" any way. He is, by definition, without beginning
and unchanging, unlike your crowd.

>> Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
>> creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.
>
> And just how do you know what elephants think about?

I did say "apparently". Did you miss that? But why don't you answer the
question: why shouldn't God have a human-like form?

[raven1]

According to whom? You? ISKCON?

> It is your side that
>invents its own definitions

Who invented yours?

> and then asks moronic and irrational
>questions like "who created God?"

That isn't what was asked.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:46:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Not to Jonathan. Abuse, like everything else, belongs where
he says it does.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:09:30 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/6/2016 10:54 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>>
>>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>>
>>> If God exists, then He must *be* something.
>>
>> Why? "Be" is a human concept.
>
>I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.

"existing things" being a human concept ....

>
>>
>>> That is, He must be a
>>> definite entity.
>>
>> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
>> human.
>
>I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.

"existing things" being a human concept ....

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-4, RSNorman wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:14:41 AM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:

> >> And yet the First Commandment admonishes us to "...have no other Gods
> >> before me..."
> >>
> >> Other Gods?
> >
> >Where is George Kaplan when he is really needed? I'd like a
> >literal translation from the original Hebrew.
> >
> >My Magyar (Hungarian) translation of 20:3, when translated into
> >English, says, "Do not consider anyone but me to be God."
> >
> >> What other Gods?
> >>
> >> Are there other Gods?
> >>
> >> Perhaps there is only one, but you would not know it from this commandment.
> >
> >I'm holding out for a literal translation of the original Hebrew, with
> >the Hebrew words directly underneath in a good transliteration.
> >
> >Otherwise, anything we could say could well be just GIGO.
> >
>
> Certainly you realize that a literal translation, especially word for
> word, is a very bad translation.

As long as we know the meanings the individual words had for the
Hebrews, a literal translation is all to the good. We are very
intelligent adults, you and I, and are able to work with such
raw material just as a paleontologist can work with scattered bones
to build a likeness of the animal.

> I tend to rely on the Schocken Bible , vol 1, The Five Books of Moses,
> translated by Everett Fox. Fox writes "the truth is that the Bible
> was nho written in ENlish in the twentieth or even the seventeenth
> century; it is ancient, sometimes obscure, and speaks in a way quite
> different from ours. Accordingly, I have sought here primarily to echo
> the style of the original, believing that the Bible is best
> approached, at least at the beginning, on its own terms. So I have
> presented the text in ENglish dress but with a Hebraic voice."

Sounds too much like editorializing.

>
> As for Exodus 20, that reads "
>
> 2. I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt,
> from a house of serfs.
>
> 3.You are not to have any other gods before my presence.

Note the lower case. And the "before my presence" means
something very different from "before me". Mark Twain had a big
long spiel about the "before me" in _Letters from the Earth_ which
loses all meaning if "before my presence" is substituted.

> 4. You are not to make yourself a carved mage or any figure that is in
> the heavens above, that is on the earth beneath, that is in the waters
> beneath the earth;
>
> 5. you are not to bow down to them, you are not to serve them, for I,
> YHWH your God, am a jealous God,

More lower case. I wonder whether the Hebrew had a separate word
for lower-case gods distinct from the ones for God. In Magyar
we have the words "Isten" for God and "alisten" for gods.

> calling to account the iniquity of
> the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation) of
> those that hate me,
>
> 6. but showing loyalty to the thousandth of those that love me, of
> those that keep my commandments.
>
> I included context to indicate the nature of the translation.
>
> Also note Exodus 34:14:
>
> "For: You are not to bow down to any other god! For YHWH --
> Jealous-One is his name, a jealous God is he!
>
> And 34:15 - 17 repeats the injunction about worshiping other "gods".
>
> The text refers repeatedly to "YHWH, your God" clearly signifying that
> others had their own gods.

These would include the household gods that Rachel had stolen
from her father Laban. [Btw, the incident serves to show just how
un-exemplary the behavior of Jacob was even at this point in time,
cheating Laban in revenge for Laban having cheated him.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia

[Kalkidas]

On 10/7/2016 11:06 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:09:30 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2016 10:54 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If God exists, then He must *be* something.
>>>
>>> Why? "Be" is a human concept.
>>
>> I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.
>
>
> "existing things" being a human concept ....

"human concept" being a human concept...

>
>>
>>>
>>>> That is, He must be a
>>>> definite entity.
>>>
>>> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
>>> human.
>>
>> I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.
>
>
> "existing things" being a human concept ....

"human concept" being a human concept...

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:23:12 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 10/7/2016 11:06 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:09:30 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2016 10:54 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>>>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>>>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>>>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If God exists, then He must *be* something.
>>>>
>>>> Why? "Be" is a human concept.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.
>>
>>
>> "existing things" being a human concept ....
>
>"human concept" being a human concept...

Now you are getting there!

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is, He must be a
>>>>> definite entity.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
>>>> human.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.
>>
>>
>> "existing things" being a human concept ....
>
>"human concept" being a human concept...

Yep, as I said - now you are getting there!

[Kalkidas]

But you're not.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, He must be a
>>>>>> definite entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
>>>>> human.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about "concepts". I'm talking about existing things.
>>>
>>>
>>> "existing things" being a human concept ....
>>
>> "human concept" being a human concept...
>
> Yep, as I said - now you are getting there!

But you're not.

[eridanus]

so, do you think the bible is the word of god, but humans could not understand
it right?

eri

[rsNorman]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

> On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-4, RSNorman wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:14:41 AM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>
>> >> And yet the First Commandment admonishes us to "...have no other Gods
>> >> before me..."
>> >>
>> >> Other Gods?
>> >
>> >Where is George Kaplan when he is really needed? I'd like a
>> >literal translation from the original Hebrew.
>> >
>> >My Magyar (Hungarian) translation of 20:3, when translated into
>> >English, says, "Do not consider anyone but me to be God."
>> >
>> >> What other Gods?
>> >>
>> >> Are there other Gods?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps there is only one, but you would not know it from this commandment.
>> >
>> >I'm holding out for a literal translation of the original Hebrew, with
>> >the Hebrew words directly underneath in a good transliteration.
>> >
>> >Otherwise, anything we could say could well be just GIGO.
>> >
>>
>> Certainly you realize that a literal translation, especially word for
>> word, is a very bad translation.
>
> As long as we know the meanings the individual words had for the
> Hebrews, a literal translation is all to the good. We are very
> intelligent adults, you and I, and are able to work with such
> raw material just as a paleontologist can work with scattered bones
> to build a likeness of the animal.

How do we know the what meanings people more than two millenia ago
had for particular words in a language no longer extant? Fox's
statement below, which you suggest is "editorializing" and which
I copied hurriedly with too many typos, goes into that as does
every Bible translated I have seen. And I have seen more than a
half dozen versions of Torah and paid attention to the
introductory material about translation. I have also read what
numerous translators of modern texts say about the problem of
translation. Most important, I have absolutely no faith that
George Kaplan knows any better than professional biblical
scholars how to translate. And saying "any better" is merely a
polite way to avoid saying "and certainly far worse".

As I understand the tradition and as already been mentioned here,
the upper case "God" is used specifically to refer to the single
God of the Hebrews/Jews and to the tripartite (single?) God of
the Christians. The very same single God of the Muslims as
traditionally spelled differently: "Allah." All other gods are
referred to in lower case.

>> calling to account the iniquity of
>> the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation) of
>> those that hate me,
>>
>> 6. but showing loyalty to the thousandth of those that love me, of
>> those that keep my commandments.
>>
>> I included context to indicate the nature of the translation.
>>
>> Also note Exodus 34:14:
>>
>> "For: You are not to bow down to any other god! For YHWH --
>> Jealous-One is his name, a jealous God is he!
>>
>> And 34:15 - 17 repeats the injunction about worshiping other "gods".
>>
>> The text refers repeatedly to "YHWH, your God" clearly signifying that
>> others had their own gods.
>
> These would include the household gods that Rachel had stolen
> from her father Laban. [Btw, the incident serves to show just how
> un-exemplary the behavior of Jacob was even at this point in time,
> cheating Laban in revenge for Laban having cheated him.]

I have absolutely no idea why you would bring Jacob and Laban into
the discussion. Household gods were well known in those days and
many icons representing those gods have been found in supposedly
Jewish homes. All sorts of cultures at that time and long before
had God's of all sorts. That only one is the True God is purely
a matter of faith. Even today different religious groups have
very different ideas about the nature of that One True God.


My impression is that every modern biblical scholar accepts that
the Torah was written to be read by people who did believe that
there were many different gods but only one deserving the title
"Our God".

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Paul J Gans]

I'm coming to this very late and I have not read previous postings. I
wish to add one simple fact about the Old Testament (actually, the
first five books known as the Torah.)

The Torah in many passages states that many gods exist but that the
God of the Jews is the most powerful of them. Or as it is several
times stated, the other gods have no power against him.

For the Jews, their God was the only god and so they were monotheistic.

There is no point in arguing this. It isn't translation errors. It
is fact that it is so written.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:11:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >On 10/4/2016 4:28 AM, RonO wrote:
> >> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >>>> *
> >>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
> >>>
> >>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
> >>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
> >> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
> >> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
> >>
> >> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
> >> like, but some people have a different opinion.
> >
> >If God exists, then He must *be* something.
>
> Why? "Be" is a human concept.
>
> >That is, He must be a
> >definite entity.
>
> Again, you are applying human concepts to something that is beyond
> human.

Egad, AAQ, you seem to be on the same wavelength as the people
I wrote about in reply to Mark Isaak, right on this thread:

__________________excerpt, with Mark first and then me,etc.____________

> >> When you start saying things about God, you start
> >> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
> >> estimation.
> >

> > This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
> > to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
> > perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
> > takes seriously nowadays.
>

> Yes, talk of God being limitless is a well-known atheist message.
> Famous atheists from Robert Ingersoll to Richard Dawkins speak about
> little else besides an infinite God.

"Infinite" does not mean "completely indescribable,"
which is what you seemed to be opting for in your first reply to me.

I've come across inchoate talk like yours before, but it was mostly
in the context of people using the famous formula "Neti, neti" without
knowing that the Upanishad where it appears is just saying
that the deity isn't this or that physical object. Otherwise,
it was in modern contexts, like people repeating Karl Barth's formula of
God being "the wholly Other" without sufficiently taking note
of how Barth believed that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
=================== end of excerpt ========================

> >Any vagueness or indefiniteness regarding Him must be
> >the product of our ignorance rather than any inherent vagueness or
> >indefiniteness in His being.

I agree with what Kalkidas says here, but now he goes off to the opposite
extreme from you:

> >So whatever is a definite thing has a definite form, by definition! :-)
> >
> >Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
> >creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.

"form" is misleading. If God exists, I expect super-intelligence, able
to comprehend anything humans comprehend, and immeasurably [1] more;
and much else along those lines. But I don't think it would be possible to
have a valid visual image of God. IOW, God would be an invisible spririt
in essence, the way most Catholics believe of him.

[1] But not necessarily infinitely more in the
mathematical sense of the words.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Maths -- standard disclaimer --
U. of So. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Kalkidas]

Well, even the Bible says that the righteous will *see* God. I don't see
any evidence that that statement is hyperbole.

And besides the Bible, the Vedic scriptures give detailed descriptions
of the visible form of God. Again, I see no evidence that those
descriptions are fictional.

And, rationally, how could a being without form create or even
comprehend beings with forms?

And emotionally, how could the "beatific vision" be merely staring at an
amorphous light for eternity? If God is a person, then He must have
form. And that form must be the most beautiful and satisfying form there is.

[Peter Nyikos]

However, we do need to know whether ancient Hebrew was an inflected
language like Magyar and Latin, or one like English where a change
in word order makes all the difference. The usual example given
for Latin works also for Magyar:

The dog bit the man.

The man bit the dog.

If the proper endings are used in Magyar to convey the sense of
the first sentence, changing the order to the second would leave
the meaning intact but change the emphasis.

The first order would emphasize that it was a dog that bit the
man (and not, e.g., a raccoon). The second emphasizes that it
was a man that the dog bit (and not, e.g., another dog). A third
ordering would emphasize that the dog bit (rather than e.g. just
licked) the man.

> How do we know the what meanings people more than two millenia ago
> had for particular words in a language no longer extant?

We just have to do the best we can, relying on the revival of Hebrew
among the religious Jews of the day. The analogy continues to hold:
there is only so much reconstruction one can do with a fossil, even
a complete one.

> Fox's statement below, which you suggest is "editorializing" and which
> I copied hurriedly with too many typos, goes into that as does
> every Bible translated I have seen. And I have seen more than a
> half dozen versions of Torah and paid attention to the
> introductory material about translation. I have also read what
> numerous translators of modern texts say about the problem of
> translation. Most important, I have absolutely no faith that
> George Kaplan knows any better than professional biblical
> scholars how to translate.

And even they can be wildly off, especially on Exodus 21:22.

> And saying "any better" is merely a
> polite way to avoid saying "and certainly far worse".

I'm sure George would not appreciate that gratuitous insult.

My point is that the difference between the Magyar translation and the
usual English translations is very great, and might be cleared
up by even someone with limited knowledge of Hebrew.

> >> I tend to rely on the Schocken Bible , vol 1, The Five Books of Moses,
> >> translated by Everett Fox. Fox writes "the truth is that the Bible
> >> was nho written in ENlish in the twentieth or even the seventeenth
> >> century; it is ancient, sometimes obscure, and speaks in a way quite
> >> different from ours. Accordingly, I have sought here primarily to echo
> >> the style of the original, believing that the Bible is best
> >> approached, at least at the beginning, on its own terms. So I have
> >> presented the text in ENglish dress but with a Hebraic voice."
> >
> > Sounds too much like editorializing.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> As for Exodus 20, that reads "
> >>
> >> 2. I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt,
> >> from a house of serfs.
> >>
> >> 3.You are not to have any other gods before my presence.
> >
> > Note the lower case. And the "before my presence" means
> > something very different from "before me". Mark Twain had a big
> > long spiel about the "before me" in _Letters from the Earth_ which
> > loses all meaning if "before my presence" is substituted.
> >
> >> 4. You are not to make yourself a carved mage or any figure that is in
> >> the heavens above, that is on the earth beneath, that is in the waters
> >> beneath the earth;
> >>
> >> 5. you are not to bow down to them, you are not to serve them, for I,
> >> YHWH your God, am a jealous God,
> >

> > [Now upper] case. I wonder whether the Hebrew had a separate word

> > for lower-case gods distinct from the ones for God. In Magyar
> > we have the words "Isten" for God and "alisten" for gods.

Oops, I was wrong about there being the second word. Magyar has the same
capitals - lower case distinction that English does.

> As I understand the tradition and as already been mentioned here,
> the upper case "God" is used specifically to refer to the single
> God of the Hebrews/Jews and to the tripartite (single?) God of
> the Christians. The very same single God of the Muslims

Not the very same. Muslims consider it blasphemous to speak of God
as a Trinity of distinct Persons.

> as traditionally spelled differently: "Allah." All other gods are
> referred to in lower case.
>
> >> calling to account the iniquity of
> >> the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation) of
> >> those that hate me,
> >>
> >> 6. but showing loyalty to the thousandth of those that love me, of
> >> those that keep my commandments.

> >> I included context to indicate the nature of the translation.

Is "context" referring to adding "(generation)"? Why didn't you also put
it after "thousandth"?

> >> Also note Exodus 34:14:
> >>
> >> "For: You are not to bow down to any other god! For YHWH --
> >> Jealous-One is his name, a jealous God is he!
> >> And 34:15 - 17 repeats the injunction about worshiping other "gods".

More precisely, it is a prohibition against mingling with the Canaanites
and participating in their religious ceremonies, where those "other"
gods are being worshipped.

> >> The text refers repeatedly to "YHWH, your God" clearly signifying that
> >> others had their own gods.
> >
> > These would include the household gods that Rachel had stolen
> > from her father Laban. [Btw, the incident serves to show just how
> > un-exemplary the behavior of Jacob was even at this point in time,
> > cheating Laban in revenge for Laban having cheated him.]
>
> I have absolutely no idea why you would bring Jacob and Laban into
> the discussion. Household gods were well known in those days and
> many icons representing those gods have been found in supposedly
> Jewish homes.

The point is that the icons are called "gods" and not icons or
"graven images" or statues, etc.

> All sorts of cultures at that time and long before
> had God's of all sorts.

Now you capitalize gods that are icons.

> That only one is the True God is purely
> a matter of faith. Even today different religious groups have
> very different ideas about the nature of that One True God.
>
>
> My impression is that every modern biblical scholar accepts that
> the Torah was written to be read by people who did believe that
> there were many different gods but only one deserving the title
> "Our God".

The word "Our" makes a huge difference in the meaning. You realize
that, don't you?

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Maths -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

You missed the point. You can't say with any certainty that only
humans even think about God, apparently or otherwise. And even if it
were true, it would have nothing to do with God's form, so your
sentence is meaningless conjecture.

Of course, God can have any form It chooses, by definition. Since
there are a virtual infinitude of forms It might choose, the chances
of It choosing a human form are virtually nil.

[jillery]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 11:00:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Wrong script, but yes, jonathan seems to believe reality is whatever
he believes. Fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in the
chaos of his imagination.

[jillery]

This may or may not relate to what you mention above, but IIUC
pre-Diaspora Hebrews accepted the existence of many gods, but each
god's strength centered on the land of their believers, and dissipated
with distance. So their god had dominion in Judea, but not in for
example Syria.

It was only after their return from exile, and the building of the
Temple, that Judaism arose which believed only their god was the One
True God.

Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible explored these ideas.

[gkaplan]

None taken. I do not have a thin skin and I also don't represent my
Hebrew as being advanced. My Greek is much better.

> My point is that the difference between the Magyar translation and the
> usual English translations is very great, and might be cleared
> up by even someone with limited knowledge of Hebrew.

The verse that the Jews hold to be key for understanding this is what is
called the SHEMA. In fact, Jesus said it was the most important
commandment, so whether Christians know this or not, it is undeniable.

In those verses monotheism is not one God, but one YHWH. This is
missed in translations that have chosen to change YHWH in their bibles
to LORD.

The word ELOHIM (God/gods) and QEOS (God/god) were used in the Mosaic
and Greco-Roman traditions for those in power including both
supernatural beings and power human beings.

However, the SHEMA does not say there is only one ELOHIM or QEOS. There
is one YHWH or as anglicized, one JHVH.

However to give one's worship, honor and devotion to another instead of
YHWH is the point of the SHEMA, not that there are not powerful
creatures who attempt to take on an honor and importance that is not
theirs to take, and not that there are not human-created idols given
that same honor, because there are. In fact the belly of the one who
worships food is also called QEOS to that one.

So don't get hung up on the generic word God/god, for it is one YHWH
that is the SHEMA both in the OT and NT.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/5/16 7:57 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 9:49:42 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/5/16 9:29 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 10:44:44 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/16 2:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:29:46 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/2016 10:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

>>>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately not. A lot of Christians have a bipedal god that is built
>>>>>> to brachiate through the heavens like an ape. What does that mean? Do
>>>>>> you have brachiating gods? Anyone with a human upper body? Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the first to admit that I do not have a clue as to what God looks
>>>>>> like, but some people have a different opinion.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ron Okimoto

>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have refused to say ANYTHING about the nature of the creator
>>>>> you supposedly believe in, it is inappropriate to use the word
>>>>> "God" for it.
>>>>

>>>> Interesting. I am of the opinion that if you *do* say anything about
>>>> the nature of the creator, then it is inappropriate to use the word
>>>> "God" for it.
>>>

>>> Don't you realize that by calling God "the creator" you ARE saying
>>> something very definite about God? Or are you banking on a "creator"
>>> about which nothing further can be said? Like, it would be improper
>>> to say that "the creator" created the universe, or any physical object?
>>

>> Mostly I used "creator" because you did, and I thought it would help
>> with communication. Boy, was I wrong.
>
> Indeed. You seem to have reduced yourself to speechlessness, else
> why did you duck every single question I asked you? I asked them
> in the hope that I could get you to clarify your inchoate claim
> of what your opinion is.
>
> Boy, was I wrong.

>
>>> Do you think that is Ron O's take on his idea of "the creator" in
>>> which he says he believes?
>>

>> Why would I, or anyone besides Ron, even care?
>
> I have my reasons for caring, but I don't think you want to
> know about them. After all, you did an unmarked snip of the
> paragraph where I gave an alternative idea of what Ron O's
> alleged "creator" might be like, one that is incompatible
> with your ideas about what God could be like, both above and below.

>
>>>> When you start saying things about God, you start
>>>> limiting God, and limits and godhood don't go well together, in my
>>>> estimation.
>>>
>>> This kind of talk just paves a wide road for atheism, IMO. It seems
>>> to negate all attempts to argue for the existence of God, except
>>> perhaps the ontological argument, which hardly any philosopher
>>> takes seriously nowadays.
>>
>> Yes, talk of God being limitless is a well-known atheist message.
>> Famous atheists from Robert Ingersoll to Richard Dawkins speak about
>> little else besides an infinite God.
>
> "Infinite" does not mean "completely indescribable,"
> which is what you seemed to be opting for in your first reply to me.

"Not limited" was the term I myself used. The only way I can see
getting atheism from that is if you see atheism everywhere. Hence my snark.

> I've come across inchoate talk like yours before, but it was mostly
> in the context of people using the famous formula "Neti, neti" without
> knowing that the Upanishad where it appears is just saying
> that the deity isn't this or that physical object. Otherwise,
> it was in modern contexts, like people repeating Karl Barth's formula of
> God being "the wholly Other" without sufficiently taking note
> of how Barth believed that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

Never mind. I have expressed my opinion and do not care if you chose to
belittle yourself by showing contempt for it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Mark Isaak]

Crowds exist, do they not? If a crowd exists, then it must *be*
something. That is, it must be a definite entity.

Your logic; your conclusion.

>> Plus, people can come and go from the crowd so that its
>> composition changes completely, but the crowd has remained the same
>> definite entity the whole time.
>
> Then a crowd is *not* a definite thing.
>
>> Obviously your God is a definite thing, but it got that way by you
>> deciding it is thus, not by the argument you attempted to use to justify
>> your decision.
>
> No. God did not "get" any way. He is, by definition, without beginning
> and unchanging, unlike your crowd.
>
>>> Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
>>> creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.
>>
>> And just how do you know what elephants think about?
>
> I did say "apparently". Did you miss that? But why don't you answer the
> question: why shouldn't God have a human-like form?

"Human-like" implies need for food, water, and oxygen, and vulnerability
to injury, disease, and temperature extremes. I don't see those
properties as particularly god-like. If you do, so be it, but I will
not be worshiping your god.

[Kalkidas]

That's not a "human-like form". That's simply a "human body". Not at all
what I was getting at.

[rsNorman]

The people doing Bible translations are expected to know all that.
We don't.

Jews also find it blasphemous to speak of God as three distinct
entities.

>> as traditionally spelled differently: "Allah." All other gods are
>> referred to in lower case.
>>
>> >> calling to account the iniquity of
>> >> the fathers upon the sons, to the third and the fourth (generation) of
>> >> those that hate me,
>> >>
>> >> 6. but showing loyalty to the thousandth of those that love me, of
>> >> those that keep my commandments.
>
>> >> I included context to indicate the nature of the translation.
>
> Is "context" referring to adding "(generation)"? Why didn't you also put
> it after "thousandth"?

That word in parenthesis was present in the Everett translation.

>
>> >> Also note Exodus 34:14:
>> >>
>> >> "For: You are not to bow down to any other god! For YHWH --
>> >> Jealous-One is his name, a jealous God is he!
>> >> And 34:15 - 17 repeats the injunction about worshiping other "gods".
>
> More precisely, it is a prohibition against mingling with the Canaanites
> and participating in their religious ceremonies, where those "other"
> gods are being worshipped.

There were all sorts of groups in the surrounding communities.
Pretty much all religions look with disfavor participation in
other ceremonies except to demonstrate some communal spirit in
which case those celebrations do not indicate belief.

>
>> >> The text refers repeatedly to "YHWH, your God" clearly signifying that
>> >> others had their own gods.
>> >
>> > These would include the household gods that Rachel had stolen
>> > from her father Laban. [Btw, the incident serves to show just how
>> > un-exemplary the behavior of Jacob was even at this point in time,
>> > cheating Laban in revenge for Laban having cheated him.]
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea why you would bring Jacob and Laban into
>> the discussion. Household gods were well known in those days and
>> many icons representing those gods have been found in supposedly
>> Jewish homes.
>
> The point is that the icons are called "gods" and not icons or
> "graven images" or statues, etc.
>

Most cultures represented their gods in physical form. The
Hebrews were very distinct in forbidding any such representation.
YHWH was an abstract concept, not a physical object and not to
be represented in physical form.

>> All sorts of cultures at that time and long before
>> had God's of all sorts.
>
> Now you capitalize gods that are icons.

My spell check did that. I apologize for not catching it. It
should be very obvious that I do not proofread my stuff very
well.

>> That only one is the True God is purely
>> a matter of faith. Even today different religious groups have
>> very different ideas about the nature of that One True God.
>>
>>
>> My impression is that every modern biblical scholar accepts that
>> the Torah was written to be read by people who did believe that
>> there were many different gods but only one deserving the title
>> "Our God".
>
> The word "Our" makes a huge difference in the meaning. You realize
> that, don't you?

The Bible translation I refer to constantly refers to God saying
"YHWH, your God,". So the people who believe in that god would
obviously refer to "YHWH, our God". As I already pointed out
and as Gans repeated, it was clear to everyone involved that
there were other gods, "their gods."

My impression is that this whole thread is dedicated to the
principle that if you believe in One God period, as opposed to
one God among many others, then necessarily all those other gods
are human creations. The logical corollary is that if you
believe in one or more of the other gods or in no god, then that
"One God" is also a human creation.

[jillery]

Then right here would have been a good place for you to say what you
were getting at. Failing that gives the impression you have no idea
what you were getting at, either. Just sayin'.

[Jonathan]

On 10/6/2016 1:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 9:59:40 AM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/6/2016 9:40 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 9:44:47 AM UTC-4, Greg Guarino wrote:

>>>> On 10/3/2016 11:02 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/2016 2:30 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> For which of these two statements is there the best and most evidence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. God created man in his own image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Man created God in his own image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Question 2 is invalid, since by definition God is uncreated and
>>>>> therefore could not have been created by man or anyone else.
>>>>>

>>>> Sounds like exactly the sort of God men would create.
>>>
>>> ...as opposed to the sort of gods the Greeks created, [1] and the Romans
>>> adopted. All were descended from the god Ouranos (Uranus) and the
>>> goddess Gaea (Terra), both of whom emerged from a pre-existing chaos.
>>>
>>> The God of Genesis 1 (Elohim) sounds a bit [2] like these gods, and
>>> says, "Let us make man in our own image." OTOH the God of Genesis 2
>>> (YHWH) is depicted in the singular, and there is no mention of
>>> YHWH having made man in the image of YHWH (or of anything else, for that
>>> matter) but only out of the "dust of the earth".
>>>
>>> [1] The whole "man created God in his image" business is the
>>> illegitimate offspring of an ancient Greek statement about
>>> the Greek gods, which thoroughly deserved the epithet.
>>>
>>> [2] But only a bit. The heavens (Ouranos) [3] and the earth (Terra)
>>> were both depicted as being made by Elohim in Genesis 1:1.
>>>
>>> [3] I don't what the Babylonian gods for heaven and earth were,
>>> but I do know that they had a chaotic sort of creation myth, which
>>> the Hebrews radically replaced with an orderly one.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can't people think more abstractly about this?
>
> They can, and I alluded to some of them in my last paragraph
> in my latest reply to Mark Isaak on this thread.
>
> But I'm no Hegelian, nor am I in a state of altered consciousness,
> like William James was at one point from nitrous oxide.
>
> [This refers to an experiment during which James, a powerful critic
> of Hegel, for a short while felt "with unutterable power" that
> Hegel was right and that all his criticisms of Hegel were wrong.]
>
>> The long running schism between science and religion
>> is merely a frame of reference error.
>
> So you assert. But I don't think anyone in this newgroup takes
> this assertion seriously the way you mean it.
>
>
>> The universe is cyclic in character, like an iteration
>> the difference between beginning and end of the loop
>> is rather subjective.
>
> Not according to current cosmology. "Dark energy" seems to
> doom the universe to inevitable decay due to an expansion
> that is forever accelerating.
>



The new cyclic cosmology holds that there's an
extraordinarily long time between cycles, that
the extended dissipation is...followed by a collapse.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html


>
>>
>> The same is true for the concept of God, if we merely
>> place God at the...end...of the evolutionary ladder, the
>> ultimate or final emergent creation, then suddenly
>> science and religion are entirely consistent with
>> each other.
>>
>> God is created in the image of man~
>
> So you are an atheist, until the God you hope for emerges from
> something that you envision.
>



Do you understand the concept of emergence?
It's a top down canalizing force that is
the ultimate source of creation and evolution.

That is not me saying that, it's established
and I've quoted a Nobel laureate below saying
the very same thing.

"Emergence is everything."

I equate God to the concept of emergence.
Emergent properties are an output to
the system from which they formed, but
at the same time an input to the systems
they create.

Hence the claim start and end is subjective
which is quite true. The universe is a vast
collection of nested and interacting systems
to isolate any one is an exercise in subjective
judgement. Not objective science.

And it's that vast collection of nested
emergent systems that is the source of
all reality. That vast system has no
objective definition and needs a suitable
and reverential name, God is the name
humanity has given it whether you like it
or not.


>
>> Science bases it's processes on...reducing to ever finer
>> gradations.
>
> Those gradations seem to have permanently terminated in quarks.
>


And quoting a Nobel laureate, those quarks have
nothing whatsoever to do with our evolving reality.
No thinking person would evoke quarks to understand
why a society decided to organize this way, or that
for instance. Our reality is dependent upon emergence.



A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down

By Robert B. Laughlin

Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford
University
Nobel Prize in Physics - 1998


"Ironically, the very success of reductionism has helped
pave the way for its eclipse. Over time, careful quantitative
study of microscopic parts has revealed that at the primitive
level at least, collective principles of organization are not
just a quaint side show but everything – the true source of
physical law, including perhaps the most fundamental laws we know.

The precision of our measurements enables us to confidently
declare the search for a single ultimate truth to have ended –

but at the same time to have failed, since nature is now
revealed to be an enormous tower of truths, each descending
from its parent, and then transcending that parent, as the
scale of measurement increases. Like Columbus or Marco Polo,
we set out to explore a new country but instead discovered
a new world.

The Transition to the Age of Emergence brings to an end the
myth of the absolute power of mathematics. This myth is
still entrenched in our culture, unfortunately, a fact
revealed routinely in the press and popular publications
promoting the search for ultimate laws as the only scientific
activity worth pursuing, notwithstanding massive and
overwhelming experimental evidence that exactly the opposite
is the case. We can refute the reductionist myth by demonstrating
that rules are correct and then challenging very smart people
to predict things with them. Their inability to do so is similar
to the difficulty the Wizard of Oz has in returning Dorothy to
Kansas. He can do it in principle, but there are a few pesky
details to be worked out. One must be satisfied in the interim
with empty testimonials and exhortations to pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain. The real problem is that Oz is
a different universe from Kansas and that getting from one to
the other makes no sense. The myth of collective behavior
following law is, as a practical matter, exactly backward.
Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things
that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics.

The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical
world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature
facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law."





>> The new science of Complexity...expands to ever greater
>> emergent systems.
>
> But almost all the expansion is done by popularizers like you
> who know precious little about the details of complexity science.



That statement shows your utter lack of understanding
this new science. Can you even define complexity science?
Can you even define the term complexity?

I'd like to see you define those terms, because
if you can't you're not informed enough to
have an educated opinion on this subject.

I don't think you can, else you'd know the centrality
of the systems approach and emergence, that it's an
entirely new world view, not just a useful technique.



> You have repeatedly spurned Richard Norman's efforts to educate
> you about the details.
>


Norman still thinks Complexity Science is just
another technique to add to the objective bag
of tricks. He knows next to nothing about
complexity science.

I've repeatedly asked him to define the
concept of complexity and he can't.
And that's like someone claiming calculus
is hooey without understanding the integral.

I hope you're not one of those, define
complexity please?



>> The two meet at...God.
>
> Sheer speculation.
>


You mentioned William James, to quote him...

"In William James's lecture of 1896 titled
"The Will to Believe", James defends the right
to violate the principle of evidentialism in
order to justify hypothesis venturing. This idea
foresaw 20th century objections to evidentialism
and sought to ground justified belief in an
unwavering principle that would prove more beneficial.
Through his philosophy of pragmatism William James
justifies religious beliefs by using the results
of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support
the hypothesis' truth. Therefore, this doctrine
allows one to assume belief in a god and prove
its existence by what the belief brings to one's life."




In our reality /perception becomes reality/.

Not the other way around, if you don't understand
that simple truth, you're lost. Tell me, how much
of our society today is the result of the
hopes, dreams, ambitions or fears from those
that came before???

Perception becomes reality. Quarks having nothing
to do with that organizing principle.

And btw, show me your equations of state for
things like hopes, dreams or fears. You can't
and that means reality is a complete mystery
to you.

But the concept of emergence clears all that up
and makes reality utterly simple. It's obvious
the new science escapes you in it's entirety.




>>
>> God is not just the greatest emergent property, the
>> point at which top down control effects all within
>> the universe.
>>
>> God is emergence itself.
>
> This is almost as far out as some of the things William James
> wrote during his nitrous oxide intoxication,



William James is considered one of the great
philosophers. I don't consider your accusation
to be an insult, quite the contrary.

If you did understand the concept of emergence
you'd know the definition of God is almost
exactly the same.

A top down canalizing force responsible for
the creation and ongoing evolution of all
visible order in the universe.

And that is not my definition, but the established
definition.



labeling them
> "meaningless drivel" but adding that at the moments of transcribing
> they seemed to be "fused in the fire of infinite rationality".
>
> References on request.
>
> I've left in the rest below, which seems to be more of the same
> except for the mundane example you have quoted.

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

> nyikos `at' math.sc.edu
>
>
>
>>
>> A top down /creative or canalizing force/ that can't
>> be seen in /any/ of the parts no matter how finely
>> detailed or how large the system.
>>
>> The point at which we can never directly see, yet
>> which all is dependent upon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Emergence
>> from Wiki
>>
>> Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of
>> a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced
>> this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts
>> (Laughlin 2005).
>>
>> The whole is other than the sum of its parts.
>>
>> An example from physics of such emergence is water, being
>> seemingly unpredictable even after an exhaustive study
>> of the properties of its constituent atoms of hydrogen
>> and oxygen.[9] It follows then that no simulation of the
>> system can exist, for such a simulation would itself
>> constitute a reduction of the system to its
>> constituent parts (Bedau 1997).
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>>
>>
>>
>> Emily had this figured out 150 years ago, when
>> will people today catch up?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought that nature was enough
>> Till Human nature came
>> But that the other did absorb
>> As Parallax a Flame
>>
>> Of Human nature just aware
>> There added the Divine
>> Brief struggle for capacity
>> The power to contain
>>
>> Is always as the contents
>> But give a Giant room
>> And you will lodge a Giant
>> And not a smaller man

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> University of South Carolina
>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

>>> nyikos "at" math.sc.edu
>>>
>

[Jonathan]

What? Huh?

Are you really trying to say animals think
about God? I mean...come on?

You can't say with certainty your house plants
aren't conspiring to take over Microsoft either
but I think we can put that idea to rest.

> And even if it
> were true, it would have nothing to do with God's form, so your
> sentence is meaningless conjecture.
>
> Of course, God can have any form It chooses, by definition. Since
> there are a virtual infinitude of forms It might choose, the chances
> of It choosing a human form are virtually nil.
>

God is a term describing the sum total of
the intrinsic creative properties of the
universe.

[Jonathan]

As the creator God must predate or be distinct from
the universe. Or have no direct presence or form
within the universe.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia...


God

"Having established by inductive inference the self-existence
of a personal First Cause distinct from matter and from
the human mind (see EXISTENCE OF GOD), we now proceed
by deductive analysis to examine the nature and attributes
of this Being to the extent required by our limited
philosophical scope."

Infinity of God

"When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He
is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that
every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in
the highest conceivable way. In a different sense
we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time
or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite
duration or space of such indefinite extension
that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or
the other.

"Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be
substantially composite, for this would mean that
infinity is made up of the union or addition of
finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms.

Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the
infinite since even this would imply a capacity for
increased perfection, which the very notion of the
infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and
cannot be any physical or real composition in God."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC



So think of anything that actually exists
to be a flawed incarnation of what is possible
or...theoretically perfect...God.


s

[Kalkidas]

I disagree. Crowds do not "exist" in the same sense as an integrated
individual. They are linguistic conveniences only.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 10:51:06 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Did you just wake up? If so, that explains a lot.

>Are you really trying to say animals think
>about God? I mean...come on?

How is the idea that some other organisms besides a human being may
have thoughts about something like God, any less reasonable that the
claim that only humans think about God?

>You can't say with certainty your house plants
>aren't conspiring to take over Microsoft either
>but I think we can put that idea to rest.

I can't say with certainty that you're incapable of posting a coherent
reply, or understanding what you read, but I think we can put those
ideas to rest.

>> And even if it
>> were true, it would have nothing to do with God's form, so your
>> sentence is meaningless conjecture.
>>
>> Of course, God can have any form It chooses, by definition. Since
>> there are a virtual infinitude of forms It might choose, the chances
>> of It choosing a human form are virtually nil.
>
>
>God is a term describing the sum total of
>the intrinsic creative properties of the
>universe.

And how 'bout them Mets.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/8/16 7:51 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 10/7/2016 8:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:16:19 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/16 9:11 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

>>> [...]

>>>>> Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all known
>>>>> creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.
>>>>
>>>> And just how do you know what elephants think about?
>>>
>>> I did say "apparently". Did you miss that? But why don't you answer the
>>> question: why shouldn't God have a human-like form?
>>
>> You missed the point. You can't say with any certainty that only
>> humans even think about God, apparently or otherwise.
>
> What? Huh?
>
> Are you really trying to say animals think
> about God? I mean...come on?

I can say with certainty that animals of at least one species think
about God. And, since I see no necessary ties between god-thoughts and
either fire use or recursive language syntax, I have no reason to expect
that the species known to think about God is unique in that respect.

[Mitchell Coffey]

The Torah also presents subordinate divine entities, as well as
semi-divine entities.

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:37:29 -0400, the following appeared

Not really; I was alluding to the fact that he seems to
think t.o is the proper "room" for anything he cares to
post, including abuse (which, of course, he would
undoubtedly class as part of the environment, and thus
relevant to evolution).

> but yes, jonathan seems to believe reality is whatever
>he believes. Fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in the
>chaos of his imagination.

No, we only have to either read it. Or ignore him.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jonathan]

On 10/8/2016 1:14 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/8/16 7:51 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/7/2016 8:32 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:16:19 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 10/6/16 9:11 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Why should not that form be human-like? Especially since, of all
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> creatures, only humans apparently even think about God.
>>>>>
>>>>> And just how do you know what elephants think about?
>>>>
>>>> I did say "apparently". Did you miss that? But why don't you answer the
>>>> question: why shouldn't God have a human-like form?
>>>
>>> You missed the point. You can't say with any certainty that only
>>> humans even think about God, apparently or otherwise.
>>
>> What? Huh?
>>
>> Are you really trying to say animals think
>> about God? I mean...come on?
>
> I can say with certainty that animals of at least one species think
> about God.

We're not animals.



animal

noun an·i·mal \ˈa-nə-məl\

Simple Definition of animal

: a living thing that is not a human being or plant

> And, since I see no necessary ties between god-thoughts and
> either fire use or recursive language syntax, I have no reason to expect
> that the species known to think about God is unique in that respect.
>

My parrot talks me daily in plain Engligh, but never a peep
about God~



s